ACQNET v4n016 (March 20, 1994) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acqnet-v4n016 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 4, No. 16, March 20, 1994 ====================================== (1) FROM: Christian SUBJECT: Whither the acquisitions librarians? (58 lines) (2) FROM: Mary McLaren SUBJECT: STBS (17 lines) (3) FROM: Pamela Theus SUBJECT: Acquisitions accounting (18 lines) (4) FROM: Beth Jacoby SUBJECT: _BIP_ searching (36 lines) (1)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Christian Subject: Whither acquisitions librarians? Date: March 20, 1994 The current issues in librarianship which I am trying to keep on top of are: electronic publishing, cataloging simplification, budgeting in higher education, digitization as a means of preservation, library education, technical services organization, and what should be done about ALA? These issues define my current job, which involves acquisitions and cataloging broadly defined, indeed, my professional life as a whole. There is a tremendous amount of activity and talk about these matters. So many people are talking about so many things that merely keeping track of what's being said, let alone participating in discussions, is problematical. As we have known for some time now, big changes are in the air. This worries many. Yet, out of this ferment a new library profession will emerge. I find this exciting and one of my particular interest is to make sure that the newly minted librarians, also known as information scientists, will have incorporated in their professional ethos the humanity that defined librarianship as I was taught to practice it. Many colleagues in many places are helping me understand these issues I mentioned: catalogers, preservation, collection development, and public services librarians. So, where are the acquisitions librarians? Why are they not discussing LC's proposal to discontinue tracing of all series? Why are they not considering the implications of the Cooperative Cataloging Council recommendations of this Winter? Why are they not involved with Elsevier in the TULIP Project? (There are lots of librarians involved in the Tulip Project, but not acquisitions librarians) Why are they not taking the lead to help Sandy Paul and her friends define standards for the archiving of remote electronic resources, a critical issue since it impacts on whether to acquire such a source locally? Why have they all but stopped talking on ACQNET? Why are they so quiet? In previous discussions on this same issue, some acquisitions librarians would have had me believe that they were so swamped with work, problems, and changes, that they lacked the time or the energy to look outside, beyond their most immediate activities, that they were victims of what my friend Barbara Winters calls the "tyranny of the urgent." I have much sympathy for this as I have often felt overwhelmed, especially in the past two years. We are living in trying times, and not only because of budgets. It is not just budgets that are forcing us to reorganize, but also the fundamental changes that are taking in place in our profession. Yet, our colleagues in other areas of librarianship are equally busy and manage to be involved. Two years ago Ross Atkinson threw a challenge to acquisitions librarians to take a leadership role in the changing publishing landscape or risk disappearing as a profession. It is not clear to me that they have picked up the challenge. Why? Because the acquisitions profession is already dead? Because it never really was alive? If not, what is it waiting for? (2)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Mary McLaren (University of Kentucky) Subject: STBS Orders Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 13:47:10 -0500 I was wondering what other Faxon clients have decided to do regarding their Gordon and Breach and Harwood titles now that STBS will no longer allow Faxon to handle them. We are reluctant to deal directly with STBS, but we also have concerns about putting these titles with a new vendor. One concern is this: If we were to transfer the titles to another vendor, what is to prevent STBS from deciding in the future that they will no longer deal with that vendor either? Is the best bet to deal directly with STBS and forget vendor placement for all of our Gordon & Breach and Harwood titles? (3)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Pamela Theus (William Paterson College) Subject: Acquisitions and accounting Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 17:10:06 -0500 How are other libraries keeping track of acquisitions encumbrances and expenditures within their acquisitions systems in addition to tracking encumbrances and expenditures in a separate accounting system used by their business or purchasing office? Are they ever able to reconcile the two systems? If so, how do they do it? I had posted this question to the DRA listserv, but received only a few simple answers. We have different sources of income that cannot be mixed, as well as other complications, but I would like to hear from anybody with any acquisitions systems that can offer some recommendations. (4)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Beth Jacoby (New York University) Subject: _BIP_ searching Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 18:26:07 -0500 At the Bobst Library, New York University, we currently search _Books in Print_ and its foreign equivalents for any order requests that have imprints older than three years on the premise that titles older than three years are more likely to be out of print than more current titles. Since we do a fair amount of retrospective buying, the amount of _BIP_ searching we do is significant. Before I came to NYU, students used to do the _BIP_ searching. When I came we had a shortage of student help, and the task of searching _BIP_ fell to full-time pre-order searchers, who are still doing this task. Rather than assign this task back to students, we are considering eliminating this task altogether. We are half way through our fiscal year (Sept 1 - Aug. 31) and have a very large backlog in processing order requests. By not having to search _BIP_, we would hope to speed up the ordering process, thereby reducing the order backlog. Hiring additional staff is not an option at this point, although staff are working overtime. I'd like to hear from other libraries who do not do _BIP_ searching, or libraries who DO it and have strong reasons for doing it. What are the advantages and disadvantages you've found by not verifying _BIP_. I'd also like to hear from vendors, too, since not searching _BIP_ has ramifications for the quality of orders they receive from us (fewer ISBN's and exact prices). If vendors receive an order for one edition which turns out to be o.p. but another similar edition is in print according to _BIP_, will they tell us about it, or will they just send us an o.p. report for the ordered edition and assume we'll do follow-up checking. Are we being lazy for not searching _BIP_ and hoping the vendor will do it for us? ****** END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 4, No. 16 ****** END OF FILE ******